Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4619
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ
NNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
T.P.SANKARAN – Respondent
WP(C)/7970/2006
SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SRI.M.A.SHAFIK, SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SRI.BIJU MARTIN, SRI.N.NAGARESH, SRI.C.S.MANILAL
The ruling establishes that reservation policies must be applied during promotions and restructuring within the railway framework to uphold organizational integrity and efficiency.
Headnote:
Reservation - Railways - 2003 Board Order 14 - The court upheld the reservation policy for SC/ST as contained in Clause 14 of the 2003 Board Order, reversing the Tribunal's decision. It emphasized that the restructuring involved merit-based promotions and mandated that reservations apply in such contexts.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India/Railways challenged the Tribunal's decision to set aside Clause 14 of a 2003 Board Order on SC/ST reservations during a restructuring that allowed for potential premature promotions to juniors over seniors, impacting organizational efficiency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that previous Supreme Court rulings confirmed the validity of reservation policies during restructuring promotions and that the Tribunal had erred in its judgment by not adhering to these precedents, thus reinstating Clause 14.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside Clause 14 of the 2003 Board Order on reservations and whether the Supreme Court's past rulings influenced the application of such reservations during the restructuring process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of reservation apply in instances involving promotions resulting from restructuring, as established in prior Supreme Court decisions, and that the Tribunal's interpretation was inconsistent with these principles.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the Union/Railways are allowed, reinstating Clause 14 of the Board Order dated 09.10.2003.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
All these writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India/Railways challenging the verdicts passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby Clause 14 of the Board Order dated 09.10.2003 stipulating that the existing Rules regarding reservation of SC/ST will continue to the restructuring of posts ordered therein. The case projected before the Tribunal by the applicants, mainly challenging the said clause, contending that if the same is let to stand, it will result in premature promotions and undue promotions to the juniors in preference to the seniors, was accepted and the said clause was set aside by the Tribunal, which is stated as not correct or sustainable in the eye of law and hence the challenge.
2. We heard Mr. C.S. Dias and Sri. James Kurien - the learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways, Sri. M.A. Shafik - the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents in W.P.(C) Nos. 7970 and 20062 of 2006, W.P.(C) No.17786 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2008 and for the first respondent in W.P. (C) No. 37287 of 2007, Sri. T.C. Govinda Swamy - the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) No.17801 of 2008 and Sri. Sajan Varghese K. - the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 6 in W.P.(C) No. 37287 of 2007 at length. W.P.(C) No. 20062 of 2006 is sought to be taken as the lead case by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways.
3. The sum and substance of the issue involved in these cases is that, in order to provide better efficiency and to upkeep the organizational interest, restructuring of various posts was implemented by the Railways as per Ext. P5 order dated 09.10.2003. The said proceedings however contain a clause (as Clause 14) to the effect that 'the existing instructions with regard to reservation of SC/ST wherever applicable will continue to apply'. Incorporation of the said clause was to the chagrin of many employees, who sought to challenge the same by filing different applications before the Tribunal, raising various grounds. The Tribunal considered O.A. No. 601 of 2004 and other connected cases and a finding was rendered on 21.11.2005 [produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2008] that the restructuring exercise involving reservation as contained in Clause 14 of the Board Order dated 09.10.2003 would not stand the test of law. It was accordingly that the said clause was set aside, virtually allowing the O.As.
4. The above order was sought to be challenged by the Government/Department by filing various writ petitions, wherein interference was declined and the writ petitions were dismissed. The matter had already been taken up before the Apex Court (at the instance of the Government/Railways) as to the scope of the very same Board Order dated 09.10.2003, whereby Clause 14 of the said Board Order was set aside by the Tribunal in some other States. After an indepth analysis, the law was declared by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in(2008) 9 SCC 242 [ Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and Ors. (Pushpa Rani's case in short)] to the effect that there was black and white difference between the earlier Scheme (Board order dated 25.06.1985) and the change brought about by 'restructuring' which was dealt with in Board Order dated 09.10.2003. The Apex Court also observed that the latter scheme, which involved the creation of post and promotion to higher posts by way of selection and hence it was to be guided by the principles of reservation. The Apex Court made clear that the Tribunal has gone wrong in setting aside Clause 14 of the said Board Order and accordingly, the cases preferred by the Government/Railways were allowed and the position was put back as it originally stood, pursuant to the Board Order dated 09.10.2003.
5. The declaration of law as above, as to the scope of the Board Order dated 09.10.2003 (which was the subject matter of the concerned O.As., which were being dealt with by this Court
